Terje Bless wrote:
[long snip]
> >It's not just "complaining". It's claiming that a valid document is
> >invalid. And this is apparently intentional. Hence, it does not even try
> >to be a validator any more.
>
> That does not follow; neither from the argument nor from the observed
> behaviour.
With respect, it /does/ follow : this is the primary diagnostic
which results from validating Jukka's page (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/)
using http://validator.w3.org:8001/
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
which is clearly a fallacious and extremely misleading statement.
Philip Taylor, RHBNC